(Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed

[nutildah]

This low fee face has been good.
But, I wonder why the Ordinals guys aren't making their moves now.
Why are you only interested in doing this during busy periods?

Well, they are/were the ones causing the busy periods. Ordinals activity is down across the board. It appears the hype is finally subsiding; however, last time I said that (in October) it came roaring back with a vengeance, so I don't want to jinx it.

It appears there market has reached an inflection between a saturation point and boredom; there's just too many ordinals + BRC-20 for sale out there and a finite amount of BTC to pay for them. If anyone is interested, this is the collection that seems to be all the rage right now:

https://magiceden.io/ordinals/marketplace/nodemonkes

The floor price is currently >0.4 BTC for them and 45.5 BTC in trading volume over the last 24 hours   insanity. No way it will last.

[1714242346]

1714242346

[1714242346]

1714242346

[1714242346]

1714242346

[larry_vw_1955]

If anyone is interested, this is the collection that seems to be all the rage right now:

https://magiceden.io/ordinals/marketplace/nodemonkes

The floor price is currently >0.4 BTC for them and 45.5 BTC in trading volume over the last 24 hours   insanity. No way it will last.

how do you even know all of that is real. maybe most of it is from the same person with different bitcoin addresses.  that's how i think is the recognized way of jumpstarting an nft project is the owner steps in and makes a bunch of fake purchases to get people looking that way. not saying this one in particular but i think alot of people do that. project owners that is. it costs them fees but not much else.

[pooya87]

Considering how we are ~6 years after the ICO scam and it still hasn't died, there is no reason to expect the Ordinals scam and attack end without any intervention. The hype may decrease but wait until market enters big bull run phase and newcomers flood the market, and we'll see how Ordinals Attack increases again as they get fresh victims.

[Wind_FURY]

This low fee face has been good.

But, I wonder why the Ordinals guys aren't making their moves now.

Why are you only interested in doing this during busy periods?

Well, they are/were the ones causing the busy periods. Ordinals activity is down across the board. It appears the hype is finally subsiding; however, last time I said that (in October) it came roaring back with a vengeance, so I don't want to jinx it.

It appears there market has reached an inflection between a saturation point and boredom; there's just too many ordinals + BRC-20 for sale out there and a finite amount of BTC to pay for them. If anyone is interested, this is the collection that seems to be all the rage right now:

https://magiceden.io/ordinals/marketplace/nodemonkes

The floor price is currently >0.4 BTC for them and 45.5 BTC in trading volume over the last 24 hours  insanity. No way it will last.

It will depend on their HODLers and if there's enough interest from people outside of their community. But it might not last. They're merely HODLing because they're incentivized when the price surges higher. People could ask how is "that" different from Bitcoin. The main difference is Bitcoin is an actual technology that acts as a backer of its ethos. It's no mere dick pick that those users like to keep in their wallets. It's a facilitator that can bring forth actual social and political change.

[nutildah]

how do you even know all of that is real. maybe most of it is from the same person with different bitcoin addresses.   that's how i think is the recognized way of jumpstarting an nft project is the owner steps in and makes a bunch of fake purchases to get people looking that way. not saying this one in particular but i think alot of people do that. project owners that is. it costs them fees but not much else.

It could be. But it would require someone to actually put the links together in a convincing manner, ala @zachxbt. I assume with majorly pumped n hyped projects like this there is a degree of wash trading going on, but its all hearsay without actual evidence. Meanwhile whats crazy is the floor price on these things has jumped to 0.73 BTC  

I can't get over the fact that they look like shit. Like, way worse than CryptoPunks.

Ordinals Attack

I think the war you are fighting is inside your head, because nobody else sees this battle but you. Hope your side is winning, for the sake of your own mental wellness.


Oh, BTW, this is fun. Peter Schiff has launched his own line of Ordinals, yet he still hates Bitcoin    you literally can't make this stuff up.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I think the war you are fighting is inside your head, because nobody else sees this battle but you.

Even though we've had our disagreements with pooya in the past, I can understand him to an extent. The basic disagreement we've had was that he supported the notion that blockchain must not be used for anything beyond monetary, whereas I supported the notion that as long as you have enough money to waste, any kind of transaction that complies with the rules is acceptable. And --in general-- the monetary incentives and disincentives is what retains the game theory in practice, not arbitrary ethics.

However, it needs to be said that Ordinals could not have brought into existence (at least in that form) without the coincidental removal of the script size limit (which up to this date I feel as if it was not deliberate?).

[NotATether]

Oh, BTW, this is fun. Peter Schiff has launched his own line of Ordinals, yet he still hates Bitcoin    you literally can't make this stuff up.

OK this is just retarded especially the third comment: "I'm the artist who created this project with Peter and can confirm he holds no Bitcoin and likely never will." If he doesn't hold any Bitcoin then who is selling these ordinals? Heck who even owns them  there is no way he's got other people selling this stuff for him and they are not forwarding him at least some of the proceeds (In bitcoin) which means even if he gets it and then sells it on an exchange in a nanosecond, he admits to using Bitcoin.

[Wind_FURY]

Ordinals Attack

I think the war you are fighting is inside your head, because nobody else sees this battle but you. Hope your side is winning, for the sake of your own mental wellness.

Personally I believe pooya87 is right, but not in the way that he believes. Ordinals itself is not the attack, but an attack vector that could be used to launch an actual "attack", but which their maximum "damage" is merely maximum annoyance caused by high fees.

But that's also the fee market serving as a defense mechanism for such an "attack".

Oh, BTW, this is fun. Peter Schiff has launched his own line of Ordinals, yet he still hates Bitcoin    you literally can't make this stuff up.

Why doesn't he use the Gold blockchain for that and inscribe each drawing on a bar of Gold. Haha.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[nutildah]

Personally I believe pooya87 is right, but not in the way that he believes. Ordinals itself is not the attack, but an attack vector that could be used to launch an actual "attack", but which their maximum "damage" is merely maximum annoyance caused by high fees.

But that's also the fee market serving as a defense mechanism for such an "attack".

I suppose that's fair.

Why doesn't he use the Gold blockchain for that and inscribe each drawing on a bar of Gold. Haha.

I'm actually quite surprised he didn't make SchiffCoin, that way he could have complete control over the project from the ground up. Maybe its because its sounds a bit too much like "Shitcoin".

[Flavatron]

The aspect of Ordinals I find most contentious is the application of Ordinal theory.  The concept that individual satoshis have a unique identifier based on their issuance order on the network (i.e., the first coinbase transaction being 0-50 billion sats) is intriguing to me. However, my main issue lies in the method used by Ordinals to store data. This method involves making the data appear like it is valid signature data and exploits a feature intended for multiple parties. As it stands, using this to store arbitrary data is similar to having an unlimited op_return—except for the overall blocksize/weight limit.

While op_returns, which are technically spent outputs, are a network-acknowledged method for storing arbitrary data, the debate continues over whether Bitcoin should be used for this purpose at all. However, between the two methods (op_return or hijacking the witness data), the one based on op_return is more widely accepted.

Currently, transferring ownership of an Ordinal is highly inefficient. Every time you want to send it to someone else, the entire weight of the data must be included in the transaction.

If the data which is actually stored in an Ordinal was nothing more than a pointer,  including a signature (witness) and a hash, CID, url or whatever of the actual full-fat data, the misuse of the blockchain could have been mitigated. As it stands it's like cramming in of data, with 0 regard on how that looks being moved around full-fat each time.

By requiring all data to be included directly in the input and UTXO for each transaction, the data transfer, fees, and network overhead remain high every time. Moreover, there's a lack of delta-encoding in Ordinals, exacerbating these issues.

Moving to a layer 2 solution could represent a step in the right direction, in my opinion.

I concur with others who view the capacity to store unlimited amounts of arbitrary data within the witness (limited only by the block size) as a potential attack vector.

[nutildah]

Currently, transferring ownership of an Ordinal is highly inefficient. Every time you want to send it to someone else, the entire weight of the data must be included in the transaction.

Nope, this part is not true. The inscription is attached (associated) with a particular ordinal (1 satoshi) via an off-chain protocol. When the ordinal is transferred, it is implied that ownership of the inscription data is also transferred. Of course, you cannot actually transfer witness data, but it does not need to be re-inscribed each time when the ordinal moves.

If the data which is actually stored in an Ordinal was nothing more than a pointer,  including a signature (witness) and a hash, CID, url or whatever of the actual full-fat data, the misuse of the blockchain could have been mitigated. As it stands it's like cramming in of data, with 0 regard on how that looks being moved around full-fat each time.

Setting a max size on taproot script length is the best chance of mitigating this "misuse," as it appears to me, anyway. What size should that be? I have no idea, but I'd hope that less than 20 kb would suffice.

[Wind_FURY]

Personally I believe pooya87 is right, but not in the way that he believes. Ordinals itself is not the attack, but an attack vector that could be used to launch an actual "attack", but which their maximum "damage" is merely maximum annoyance caused by high fees.

But that's also the fee market serving as a defense mechanism for such an "attack".

I suppose that's fair.

👍

Why doesn't he use the Gold blockchain for that and inscribe each drawing on a bar of Gold. Haha.

I'm actually quite surprised he didn't make SchiffCoin, that way he could have complete control over the project from the ground up. Maybe its because its sounds a bit too much like "Shitcoin".

It's probably better for Peter Schiff to be the official representative or "the face" of the forked-Bitcoin-shitcoin called "Bitcoin-Gold". The name fits with is "Gold Is Supreme" narrative, AND it has the word "Bitcoin" beside it.

"I don't own Bitcoin, but do you know what I own? BITCOIN-GOLD".

[Flavatron]

Currently, transferring ownership of an Ordinal is highly inefficient. Every time you want to send it to someone else, the entire weight of the data must be included in the transaction.

Nope, this part is not true. The inscription is attached (associated) with a particular ordinal (1 satoshi) via an off-chain protocol. When the ordinal is transferred, it is implied that ownership of the inscription data is also transferred. Of course, you cannot actually transfer witness data, but it does not need to be re-inscribed each time when the ordinal moves.

If the data which is actually stored in an Ordinal was nothing more than a pointer,  including a signature (witness) and a hash, CID, url or whatever of the actual full-fat data, the misuse of the blockchain could have been mitigated. As it stands it's like cramming in of data, with 0 regard on how that looks being moved around full-fat each time.

Setting a max size on taproot script length is the best chance of mitigating this "misuse," as it appears to me, anyway. What size should that be? I have no idea, but I'd hope that less than 20 kb would suffice.

Gotcha! In effect then, this offchain protocol is really the one which will check a utxo back to it's coinbase tx. For in doing so, it can determine the ordinal range of the utxo(which is the part considered static)

The data is actually stored in the witness data, but when the utxo is move, like crafting a normal raw tx, there is no need for the data... so in effect the size of the tx becomes standard in regards to the inputs/outputs as normal( rather than the hijacked data in the original)

[Greg Tonoski]

Considering how we are ~6 years after the ICO scam and it still hasn't died, there is no reason to expect the Ordinals scam and attack end without any intervention. The hype may decrease but wait until market enters big bull run phase and newcomers flood the market, and we'll see how Ordinals Attack increases again as they get fresh victims.

+1. More about it: https://wtfhappenedinfeb2023.com/#high-fees-will-solve-spam.

[OgNasty]

Considering how we are ~6 years after the ICO scam and it still hasn't died, there is no reason to expect the Ordinals scam and attack end without any intervention. The hype may decrease but wait until market enters big bull run phase and newcomers flood the market, and we'll see how Ordinals Attack increases again as they get fresh victims.

Ordinals and the Lightning Network should be viewed as the same thing.  Supporting one and not the other is hypocritical.  I'm not saying they aren't both garbage, I'm just saying it has a fundamental importance that they be treated the same.

[pooya87]

Hope your side is winning, for the sake of your own mental wellness.

Oh my mental wellness, I'm so worried now

The aspect of Ordinals I find most contentious is the application of Ordinal theory.  The concept that individual satoshis have a unique identifier based on their issuance order on the network (i.e., the first coinbase transaction being 0-50 billion sats) is intriguing to me.

That is not entirely correct.
For starters Ordinals is not part of the Bitcoin protocol. So it is not doing anything to those statoshis despite what the advertisement says.
Secondly because blockchain is an ordered database (it is a chain) with a timestamp, those satoshis already had a unique identifier attached to them with that timestamp and the block height of the block they're included in.

However, my main issue lies in the method used by Ordinals to store data. This method involves making the data appear like it is valid signature data and exploits a feature intended for multiple parties. As it stands, using this to store arbitrary data is similar to having an unlimited op_return—except for the overall blocksize/weight limit.

That is why I categorize Ordinals as an attack; it is exploiting the protocol. By the way OP_RETURN was never limited at the protocol level, you can have a perfectly valid transaction with an output that is as big as it can be (to fill an entire block). It was and still is the standard rules that is preventing OP_RETURN from being "exploited" to include arbitrary size data in the blockchain. Something that was lacking in the SegWit change and got exploited by this attack.

Moving to a layer 2 solution could represent a step in the right direction, in my opinion.

There is a flaw in this logic. Bitcoin should not and is not supposed to do everything and solve every problem. Read what the creator of Bitcoin says about this. If you want to create a token, use a token creation platform. They are designed to do exactly that in the right way not in a weak off the main chain thing that can work however the owners and controllers of it want.

Ordinals and the Lightning Network should be viewed as the same thing.  Supporting one and not the other is hypocritical.  I'm not saying they aren't both garbage, I'm just saying it has a fundamental importance that they be treated the same.

They are not even close.

In LN with all its shortcomings, you are sending actual bitcoins to your channel on-chain and then use that exact bitcoin in another layer to make any number of transactions you want with others who have done the same and at some point if you wished to, you can settle the final balance on chain again. It all depends 100% on what is happening inside Bitcoin and every single script in that process is part of the Bitcoin protocol, validated and enforced by the decentralized network of nodes and the security of this second layer is ensured by security of Bitcoin.
LN is also an actual network where you can run a node (as a peer) and enforce the rules of this network. In other words you know what the protocol is and you are enforcing its rules which can not change arbitrarily by some centralized entity.

That's not even close to what happens in the Ordinals Attack. In Ordinals you are just injecting an arbitrary data into the chain, and that is arbitrary data, not a script, not a token. Then there is a centralized database somewhere else where you can trade something they associate with this arbitrary data in a protocol they've defined, control and can change if they wanted to.
Ordinals is not a network, there is no node for you to run. You are not a peer in this system, you are just a user of this centralized database. It is not even linked to Bitcoin the way it may look like. In other words if Bitcoin ceased to exist right now, LN would cease to exist too but Ordinals may not!

If you want to compare Ordinals with anything, you can compare it with Tether.
You inject an arbitrary data into bitcoin blockchain using OP_RETURN. There is this other centralized protocol that is only enforced and controlled by the company (iFinex?) and can change if they wished, your Tethers can also be seized by that company at any time because it is centralized. There is also no node for you to run as a peer, you are just a user in that network.

[ABCbits]

If the data which is actually stored in an Ordinal was nothing more than a pointer,  including a signature (witness) and a hash, CID, url or whatever of the actual full-fat data, the misuse of the blockchain could have been mitigated. As it stands it's like cramming in of data, with 0 regard on how that looks being moved around full-fat each time.

Setting a max size on taproot script length is the best chance of mitigating this "misuse," as it appears to me, anyway. What size should that be? I have no idea, but I'd hope that less than 20 kb would suffice.

I'd say 10KB, following limit of script size which used before Taproot exist. Although it won't impact BRC-20 while Ordinal already have protocol which split arbitrary data into multiple TX.

Considering how we are ~6 years after the ICO scam and it still hasn't died, there is no reason to expect the Ordinals scam and attack end without any intervention. The hype may decrease but wait until market enters big bull run phase and newcomers flood the market, and we'll see how Ordinals Attack increases again as they get fresh victims.

Ordinals and the Lightning Network should be viewed as the same thing.  Supporting one and not the other is hypocritical.  I'm not saying they aren't both garbage, I'm just saying it has a fundamental importance that they be treated the same.

Aside from what @ pooya87 said, Ordinals encourage people to store all data on-chain, while LN generally only store initial and final state of the channel on-chain.

[Wind_FURY]

Considering how we are ~6 years after the ICO scam and it still hasn't died, there is no reason to expect the Ordinals scam and attack end without any intervention. The hype may decrease but wait until market enters big bull run phase and newcomers flood the market, and we'll see how Ordinals Attack increases again as they get fresh victims.

Ordinals and the Lightning Network should be viewed as the same thing.  Supporting one and not the other is hypocritical.  I'm not saying they aren't both garbage, I'm just saying it has a fundamental importance that they be treated the same.

They're the same that they were developed and built on top of Bitcoin without permission, BUT they are not the same thing because they technically function differently. The Lightning Network was built to give users another way of sending/receiving Bitcoin, and doing it cheaper than on-chain transactions. Although it has many critics, it's trying to solve a problem.

Ordinals? It isn't for the science/development of new technology, it's an inefficient way to use the network, it isn't trying to solve anything. What it's good for is shitcoinery/"trading" assets denomonated in Bitcoin to "maybe" make some profit in Bitcoin.

[philipma1957]

Considering how we are ~6 years after the ICO scam and it still hasn't died, there is no reason to expect the Ordinals scam and attack end without any intervention. The hype may decrease but wait until market enters big bull run phase and newcomers flood the market, and we'll see how Ordinals Attack increases again as they get fresh victims.

Ordinals and the Lightning Network should be viewed as the same thing.  Supporting one and not the other is hypocritical.  I'm not saying they aren't both garbage, I'm just saying it has a fundamental importance that they be treated the same.

why? what is your reasoning behind this statement

[nutildah]

why? what is your reasoning behind this statement

Hear me out: Ordinals on Lightning.



No of course they're different. One is a L2 solution for moving around BTC and the other is a L1 solution for moving around satoshis of artificial importance.